|
Joementum posted:Trey Gowdy is chairman of the House Committee on Benghazi So his sartorial choices are as bad as his ability to get to the truth about Benghazi?
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The only reason she'd be offered the VP is to remove her from the senate and keep her from further rocking the Wall St. boat in substantive rather than rhetorical ways. I'm sure a lot of Democratic donors loving hate her. Warren is incredibly popular among Dem donors. Wall St gives to Dems, but not nearly as much as people think. Picking Warren is a sign the Clinton campaign is confident they're going to win though, because it's "risky" in ways picking a white guy isn't; it also sends a strong signal that she has no intentions of cutting and running on lefter economic policies, because Warren being VP means she's going to have a giant megaphone to do what she does best: advocate and promulgate left ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's not happening. Which part? Because she isn't going to be VP and Schumer is unfortunatly taking over. Noam Chomsky posted:The only reason she'd be offered the VP is to remove her from the senate and keep her from further rocking the Wall St. boat in substantive rather than rhetorical ways. I'm sure a lot of Democratic donors loving hate her. Oh for sure and is one of the reasons I do not want her to be VP. She needs to stay were she is and become very, very vocal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Which part? Because she isn't going to be VP and Schumer is unfortunatly taking over. I actually think there might be something to the VP poo poo. But, yes even if she doesn't become VP she's never becoming senate leader.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Warren is literally who Democratic Senator's will often go to for help with Fundraising. Warren is liked a ton by the Dems donors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Slate agrees with our friends in TFR. If you want to debate gun control, you have to have detailed knowledge of gun terminology, history, and culture.. People who talk about clips instead of magazines need not apply. hm but it's strange we don't apply this standard of proof to climate change. quite the opposite really
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Slate agrees with our friends in TFR. If you want to debate gun control, you have to have detailed knowledge of gun terminology, history, and culture.. People who talk about clips instead of magazines need not apply. When it comes to discussing specific weapon bans - yes. The surrounding issues - no. It's not that hard to understand Edit: oh sweet i hated my old avatar
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Slate agrees with our friends in TFR. If you want to debate gun control, you have to have detailed knowledge of gun terminology, history, and culture.. People who talk about clips instead of magazines need not apply. Ironically it gets its gun  facts wrong.quote:An assault weapon is a semi-automatic gun that can accept detachable magazines and has a pistol grip and foldable stock (to increase the gun’s length). Folding stocks DECREASE a guns length when folded. That's, like, what folding DOES.  They usually are the same or even slightly shorter length when extended. Also literally used by the military assault rifles often have fixed stocks (like the original M-16 and AK-47), not folding or telescoping/collapsable/whatever stocks, so saying an assault weapon has to have them to qualify doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Antti posted:You can use it to create a shortcut for someone to national prominence, and that's why Perez or Castro is floated as a potential pick since the Democratic national bench is running thin (because their base doesn't vote in midterms). Castro is not going to be reach national elected office in Texas any time soon. Perez hasn't really run for anything so he's a bit of a gamble - if he discovers he hates campaigning he's going to be very miserable. It's also a good way to groom someone for a future presidential run themselves, which again suggests Perez and Castro. Given what's known of Hillary, there's a very good chance that looking for a successor is prominent in her VP considerations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Picking Warren is a sign the Clinton campaign is confident they're going to win though, because it's "risky" in ways picking a white guy isn't; it also sends a strong signal that she has no intentions of cutting and running on lefter economic policies, because Warren being VP means she's going to have a giant megaphone to do what she does best: advocate and promulgate left ideas. I may be saying that because I like this choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Slate agrees with our friends in TFR. If you want to debate gun control, you have to have detailed knowledge of gun terminology, history, and culture.. People who talk about clips instead of magazines need not apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:When it comes to discussing specific weapon bans - yes. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I actually think there might be something to the VP poo poo. To me it is silly to remove her from the senate where she can do ye most good. I also really, really like the Perez pas VP idea the more I read on him and listen to him speak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Slate agrees with our friends in TFR. If you want to debate gun control, you have to have detailed knowledge of gun terminology, history, and culture.. People who talk about clips instead of magazines need not apply. Good news for homophobes who love to explain gay sex in complex anatomical detail!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
So anyone that equated Christie to Reek: Apparently he was snapped fetching McD's for the Donald https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/scott-brown-says-he-wont-fetch-trumps-mcdonalds-like-christi?utm_term=.lfX7beYGV#.yx8bwan51 
Shirec fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
I mean if your ignorance of firearms leads you to support things that amount to ineffective gun control, such as pretty much all the 1994 AWB, then you're actually getting in the way of effective gun control and should probably knock that off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Sadly now that Hillary has won the primary, consolidated the power players, and her polling against Trump is looking good she's going to pick the safest and most boring person on that list: Tim Kaine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
The grain of truth hidden in gun is that you have to know SOMETHING about what you're trying to ban for it to ban what you want it to ban, or it's going to fail. For perspective, below is a picture of a gun that you could sell brand new after the old AWB:
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERnyk7LurPM Heh. But yeah he'd probably be a good pick to portray progressiveness while not pulling Warren out of the senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I mean if your ignorance of firearms leads you to support things that amount to ineffective gun control, such as pretty much all the 1994 AWB, then you're actually getting in the way of effective gun control and should probably knock that off. The problem is, effective gun control is probably something closer to something that would cause the entire pro-gun side to have a fit, and passing lovely "ban the tacticool scary guns" bills is all they're willing to compromise on because they know how stupid it is. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jun 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
How much of "this gun control proposal is over parts and is stupid" comes from genuine ignorance of the science and mechanics (?) behind guns and how much of it is from "the only way we can get some gun control passed is to make it only cover some small section of guns, and that means delving into mechanical definitions"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:How much of "this gun control proposal is over parts and is stupid" comes from genuine ignorance of the science and mechanics (?) behind guns Don't forget that we can't give the regulatory agency any powers - so everything that is banned has to be banned in precise terms on a legislative level, it's almost as if the whole point is to produce watered down legislation that won't do anything. The AWB's problems are not an argument against gun control, they're an argument for better gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
A friend of mine keeps posting pro vaccination memes on her Facebook wall. I demanded that she recite the compliment pathway from memory. When she couldn't do that, I asked her what really does cause autism? She couldn't even name some of the genes the scientific community thinks might be involved, much less have herself tested to see if she's a potential carrier. What a loving dumb piece of poo poo she is, amirite?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The problem is, effective gun control is probably something closer to something that would cause the entire pro-gun side to have a fit, and passing lovely "ban the tacticool scary guns" bills is all their willing to compromise on because they know how stupid it is. This is 100% true, but Democratic lawmakers in 1994 also gave the distinct impression of not knowing what the gently caress and acting like pistol grips and bayonet lugs gave guns magical murder properties. Banning new high capacity magazine sales... and then giving the industry a big enough window to flood the market with magazines before the law went into effect , while also allowing the sale of all the individual components used to make the pre-ban magazines after the ban, was also kind of questionable. Antti posted:Don't forget that we can't give the regulatory agency any powers - so everything that is banned has to be banned in precise terms on a legislative level, it's almost as if the whole point is to produce watered down legislation that won't do anything. This, 100%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Trey Gowdy is chairman of the House Committee on Benghazi At the women's softball game, so here is a pic of three men.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm glad Bernie is advocating for younger people to try to run for smaller local positions, because that's how you actually get a Progressive revolution. I just wish he had been advocating that for his entire campaign. Yeah it really would have helped things if he had started pushing the downticket before a ton of state and local primaries (not the presidential ones), and even regular elections, had already finished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah it really would have helped things if he had started pushing the downticket before a ton of state and local primaries (not the presidential ones), and even regular elections, had already finished. Yeah but any disagreement with his exact policy positions makes you corrupt and ineligible for his support, so it took them six months to vet downticket candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
What the Christ have you disaffected assclowns done with the country since the last time I paid attention some months ago? Also, I assume you have all seen this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Which part? Because she isn't going to be VP and Schumer is unfortunatly taking over. Agreed. I am a massive Warren fan and I do not want her to ever run for or be elected to the presidency or vice presidency. The presidency has been proven to be kind of a lovely neutered office with little utility beyond appointments and the bully pulpit (though those things are still very important), for as long as Republicans are in "durr durr fuk u libs durrrrrrrrrr" mode and control congress. We need awesome senators and congresspersons, and we need the electorate to actually know that the real power of day-to-day legislation lies in congress and not with the presidency, but that will never happen because our education system is trash and our people are fairly stupid and misinformed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:What the Christ have you disaffected assclowns done with the country since the last time I paid attention some months ago? I posted it a few pages ago. No one cared. I think for many Trump is beyond laughing at and now many in D&D are setting their hair on fire and are actually worried about the chump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The problem is, effective gun control is probably something closer to something that would cause the entire pro-gun side to have a fit, and passing lovely "ban the tacticool scary guns" bills is all they're willing to compromise on because they know how stupid it is. Frankly banning *anything* is probably a wrong approach, maybe even to the extent that we can use some of the still-existing bans as leverage to get what we really need: registration, inspections, and education / skill requirements for ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:The presidency has been proven to be kind of a lovely neutered office with little utility I was under the impression that the power of the Executive has actually been constantly expanding since at least the Clinton era, to the point where people do get real worried about the GOP taking the seat even as we wring our hands over how obstructionist Congress is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Gowdy is such a dork.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:What the Christ have you disaffected assclowns done with the country since the last time I paid attention some months ago? Nobody clicks blind youtube links. Post gifs instead. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
meristem posted:I'm confused. Isn't Warren on the VP pick list just so that, when the list leaked, people could talk about how Hillary Clinton is considering Warren for a VP pick? Because that's what I assumed, that the list leaked half for PR purposes (the other half being so that the campaign could gauge audience reactions to the people they are actually considering). Yes, that and early lists are "grab the names of anyone we'd consider, even in passing, and start narrowing it down." Dexo posted:Warren is literally who Democratic Senator's will often go to for help with Fundraising. Cool, so she keeps doing that as a senator while Hillary picks someone like Perez or Castro to both groom them as the next generation's leader while also baiting Trump to make (more) racist comments. Clinton will probably depress us all by picking the most middle of the road bland white guy she can find. Fundraising is not a reason to pick Warren. It's not even close to being a good reason since it's not like she won't be able to raise the same amount of money as a senator. She doesn't have a hidden "+100% increase in donation size" hidden passive skill or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:What the Christ have you disaffected assclowns done with the country since the last time I paid attention some months ago?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Clinton will probably depress us all by picking the most middle of the road bland white guy she can find. MIGF for VP
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I was under the impression that the power of the Executive has actually been constantly expanding since at least the Clinton era, to the point where people do get real worried about the GOP taking the seat even as we wring our hands over how obstructionist Congress is. It's a little bit more complicated than that. Since the GOP controls the House for now, and into the foreseeable future, Democratic presidents are indeed neutered and will probably never be able to get things passed through the legislature.The problem is of course that should a Republican be elected bad legislation will rocket through so fast members won't even read it before it's passed and they will devolve most of their power to the Executive. Think of 2001-2009 Congress, when GOP controlled, was an afterthought. Bills would literally be written in secret Executive meetings and then rubber stamped by Congress. At this point the best we can hope for with a Democratic President is that things don't get worse, because there is no way for them to get better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yes, that and early lists are "grab the names of anyone we'd consider, even in passing, and start narrowing it down." The hell, My statement had nothing to do with her being picked. I've literally said multiple times that she would be a bad pick and would be more useful in the senate. i was responding to someone who said that Warren doesn't fund raise well and that the Democratic Donors want her out of the senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I posted it a few pages ago. No one cared. I think for many Trump is beyond laughing at and now many in D&D are setting their hair on fire and are actually worried about the chump. I liked it. Not as much as Colbert's blackboard thing though. Has that been posted yet today? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_GFkdxwbQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:26
|
|